Oklahoma Supreme Court temporarily blocks OSDE Bible purchase request
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — The Oklahoma Supreme Court has temporarily blocked State Superintendent Ryan Walters and the State Department of Education from purchasing Bibles and Bible-based lessons for Oklahoma schools.
On Monday, the court barred OSDE from issuing any new requests for the purchase of Bibles. The ruling also places a temporary hold on a request for proposals seeking a supplier for Bible-based curriculum.
The ruling comes after the Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services, the state agency that oversees RFPs, asked the court to issue a stay because of the concerns about ongoing lawsuits and the possibility of new legal challenges.
Budgeting for Bibles in classrooms not recommended
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice issued the following joint statement after the ruling.
'This victory is an important step toward protecting the religious freedom of every student and parent in Oklahoma. Superintendent Ryan Walters has been abusing his power and the court checked those abuses today. Our diverse coalition of families and clergy remains united against Walters's extremism and in favor of a core First Amendment principle: the separation of church and state.'
Walters also commented on the ruling on Monday.
'The Bible has been a cornerstone of our nation's history and education for generations,' Walters said. 'We will continue fighting to ensure students have access to this foundational text in the classroom.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Poland Election: Ukraine Skeptic Candidate Swings Surprise Victory
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Poland's relationship with Ukraine and the U.S. will become a new focus of the country's politics following the presidential election victory of right-wing nationalist Karol Nawrocki, a Warsaw-based political expert has told Newsweek. Why It Matters Sunday's election was being closely watched as a signifier of Poland's political direction including its approach to Polish-Ukrainian relations. Nawrocki, who was supported by the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party, is said to adopt a "Trumpian" style of politics and during the campaign he visited the Oval Office where he was pictured with the U.S. president. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had urged Poles to elect him. Karol Nawrocki, presidential candidate for the Law and Justice Party, following the Polish presidential runoff election on June 1, 2025, in Warsaw, Poland. Karol Nawrocki, presidential candidate for the Law and Justice Party, following the Polish presidential runoff election on June 1, 2025, in Warsaw, Poland. Sean Gallup//Getty Images What To Know In Sunday's run-off, Nawrocki defeated his liberal rival, Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, according to Poland's National Election Commission, in a surprise turnaround from the first exit poll which indicated that Trzaskowski was ahead. Nawrocki got the support of President Donald Trump and he backs Warsaw's support for Ukraine against Russian aggression, but does not want to see Kyiv join NATO nor the EU. "Poland remains deeply divided," Piotr Buras, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Newsweek on Monday. After all the votes were counted, Poland's electoral commission said Nawrocki had won 50.9 percent of the vote, compared with Trzaskowski's 49.1 percent. It was a switch from an exit poll at 9 p.m. Sunday that showed Trzaskowski ahead 50.3 percent to 49.7 percent, after which he declared a premature victory. Trzaskowski's campaign hinged on supporting Prime Minister Donald Tusk's democratic reforms. While Poland has a parliamentary system in which the president's authority is largely ceremonial, the head of state can veto legislation proposed by lawmakers. The president has a key role in foreign affairs and serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and Nawrocki is likely to continue to use his veto power to block Tusk's pro-EU program. The result is also likely also rejuvenate the conservative PiS opposition that lost power eighteen months ago as it eyes taking on Tusk's coalition in 2027 parliamentary elections. Buras, head of the ECFR's Warsaw office, told Newsweek that Warsaw's relations with the U.S. and Ukraine are likely to become subject to party political conflict. Buras said Nawrocki and the PiS will play the Trump or American card in domestic politics, criticizing Tusk's alleged abandoning of the trans-Atlantic partnership by siding with Poland's European allies. Nawrocki has struck an "anti-Ukrainian" sentiment on the campaign trail, reflecting his own convictions as the head of the Institute for National Remembrance which embraces nationalist historical narrative, he said. Both Poland's role as a promoter of a stronger EU defense policy and as an important actor in Ukraine's EU and NATO integration process could be seriously hampered given the changed domestic political context, added Buras. What People Are Saying Piotr Buras, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations: "This election was a battle between two strong negative emotions—or 'projects fear' Between the rejection of the Tusk government and the fear of [a] PiS return to power." What Happens Next Nawrocki will succeed Andrzej Duda, a conservative whose second and final term ends on August 6. Poland's president serves for a five-year period and may be reelected once under the country's constitution. The U.S. has about 10,000 troops in Poland and Homeland Security Secretary Noem suggested military ties could deepen with Nawrocki as president. But Buras said Poland will enter a period of conflict and instability, with a weakened government in terms of legitimacy and ability to act. While a snap election is not likely this year, it could happen as early as 2026, Buras added.
8 hours ago
Bangladesh opens trial of deposed ex-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina
DHAKA, Bangladesh -- A special tribunal set up to try Bangladesh's ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina began proceedings Sunday by accepting charges of crimes against humanity filed against her in connection with a mass uprising in which hundreds of students were killed last year. The Dhaka-based International Crimes Tribunal directed investigators to produce Hasina, a former home minister and a former police chief before the court on June 16. Hasina has been in exile in India since Aug. 5, 2024, while former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan is missing and possibly also in India. Former police chief Chowdhury Abdullah Al Mamun has been arrested. Bangladesh sent a formal request to India to extradite Hasina in December. State-run Bangladesh Television broadcast the court proceedings live. Hasina and her Awami League party had earlier criticized the tribunal and its prosecution team for their connection with political parties, especially with the Jamaat-e-Islami party. In an investigation report submitted on May 12, the tribunal's investigators brought five allegations of crimes against humanity against Hasina and the two others during the mass uprising in July-August last year. According to the charges, Hasina was directly responsible for ordering all state forces, her Awami League party and its associates to carry out actions that led to mass killings, injuries, targeted violence against women and children, the incineration of bodies and denial of medical treatment to the wounded. The charges describe Hasina as the 'mastermind, conductor, and superior commander' of the atrocities. Three days after Hasina's ouster, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus took over as the nation's interim leader. The Yunus-led administration, which has already banned the Awami League party, amended relevant laws to allow for the trial of the former ruling party for its role during the uprising. In February, the U.N. human rights office estimated that up to 1,400 people may have been killed in Bangladesh over three weeks in the crackdown on the student-led protests against Hasina, who ruled the country for 15 years. The tribunal was established by Hasina in 2009 to investigate and try crimes involving Bangladesh's independence war in 1971. The tribunal under Hasina tried politicians, mostly from the Jamaat-e-Islami party, for their actions during the nine-month war against Pakistan. Aided by India, Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Hasina's father and the country's first leader. In a separate development, Bangladesh's Supreme Court on Sunday cleared the path for the Jamaat-e-Islami party to regain its registration as a political party after a decade — a decision that would enable the party to take part in elections. The country's top court overturned a previous High Court verdict and said it is now up to the Election Commission to formally restore the registration of Bangladesh's largest Islamist party and their election symbol. Yunus said his administration would hold the election by June next year, but the Bangladesh Nationalist Party headed by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, Hasina's archrival, wants the election to be held in December this year. The relation between Zia's party, which is the largest in absence of Hasina's party, and the Yunus-led government has recently been frosty over the polls schedule.
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Discrimination cases unravel as Trump scraps core civil rights tenet
The Justice Department now is reviewing its entire docket and has already dismissed or terminated 'many' cases that were 'legally unsupportable' and a product of 'weaponization' under the Biden administration, said Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We will fully enforce civil rights laws in a way that satisfies the ends of justice, not politicization,' she said in a statement to The Washington Post. Advertisement The review includes cases and reform agreements forged after years-long investigations that the administration says lacked justification. Civil rights experts estimate that dozens of discrimination cases involving banks, landlords, private employers, and school districts could face similar action. 'What we're seeing is an attempt by the Trump administration to really dismantle a lot of the core tools that we use to ensure equality in the country,' said Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel and comanager of the Equal Protection Initiative at the Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit that has long advocated for the civil rights of Black Americans and other minorities. Advertisement At the center of this effort is 'disparate impact analysis,' which holds that neutral policies can have discriminatory outcomes even if there was no intent to discriminate. The legal standard stems from Griggs v. Duke Power, the landmark 1971 Supreme Court decision that became a staple of civil rights litigation. In that case, attorneys relied on statistical evidence to show how standardized testing prevented Black employees in North Carolina from advancing at the energy company. The legal theory has been consistently recognized by the Supreme Court, written into federal regulations and enshrined into employment law by Congress. But President Trump declared it unconstitutional in April, issuing an executive order that kicked off an intense review of civil rights regulations, enforcement actions, and settled cases. Now, government agreements and orders that relied on disparate impact in pursuing sex, race, and disability discrimination cases are being undone. On May 23, for example, the Justice Department terminated an agreement with Patriot Bank, a Tennessee-based lender accused of failing to lend in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods in Memphis, from 2015 to 2020. Prosecutors used statistical evidence to show disparities in the bank's lending practices alongside evidence of intentional discrimination, such as targeting most of its advertising in majority-white neighborhoods. A three-year agreement to reform its lending practices had been in place for a little over a year before Trump's Justice Department moved to end it, noting the bank was in compliance with the reform agreement. Patriot declined to comment. Civil rights advocates worry about the future of similar enforcement. Advertisement Disparate impact has long been anathema to conservatives, who say it can result in quotas and deny equal opportunity to white people. But past Republican administrations opted not to take this issue on, partly because of Supreme Court precedent and partly because it might prove politically unpopular. 'What changed is just political will,' said Kenneth L. Marcus, who headed the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights during both George W. Bush's administration and Trump's first term. 'The second Trump administration is more willing to take on potentially contentious civil rights issues than any Republican administration this century.' Trump issued a slew of executive orders to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs - calling them 'illegal and immoral' days after he returned to the White House in January - and ordered the government to close diversity offices and fire staff. His administration has since launched investigations into corporations, law firms and colleges over their diversity initiatives, while going to battle with Harvard University for its refusal to comply with a set of demands to alter its governance, admissions, and hiring practices. When Trump set his sights on disparate impact in April, he called it a 'pernicious movement' that ignores 'individual strengths, effort or achievement.' He ordered federal agencies to review any cases and reform agreements that rely on the theory - and terminate them as they see fit. The actions are long overdue, said Dan Morenoff, executive director at the American Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit law firm that opposes the use of disparate impact and diversity initiatives. He contends that the government's use of disparate impact has been, in many cases, legally dubious, adding that its assumptions are fundamentally flawed. Advertisement 'The people who most appreciate disparate impact appear, usually, to be deeply wed to the idea that any discrepancies are best explained by discrimination,' he said. The Supreme Court most recently upheld the use of disparate impact analysis in a 2015 housing case. But that decision was decided on a 5-4 vote in an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, now retired. Some conservatives believe the court's current conservative supermajority might give them their wished-for outcome. 'It's clear what the Trump administration is aiming for is to get this question to the Supreme Court in hopes the Supreme Court will take that tool away,' said Smirniotopoulos of the Legal Defense Fund. The rollbacks are already underway. In 2023, the Justice Department alleged that Atlanta-based Ameris Bank avoided providing home loans to Black and Latino home buyers in Jacksonville, Florida, in a practice known as redlining. The bank almost exclusively advertised in majority-White neighborhoods and made little effort to do business in majority Black and Latino neighborhoods, according to its lawsuit. Only 2.7 percent of Ameris's mortgages went to borrowers in Black and Latino communities from 2016 to 2021, the complaint said, while its competitors issued more than three times as many loans during that window. Ameris knew about the disparities but failed to correct them, the government alleged. Though it admitted no wrongdoing, Ameris quickly settled the case, agreeing to a set of measures whose progress would be monitored by the court. Then, on May 19, the Justice Department moved to unwind the settlement, saying that the bank has 'demonstrated a commitment to remediation' while freeing it from its legal obligations to implement the reforms. The bank did not object to the move. Prosecutors did note that Ameris had disbursed the entirety of a $7.5 million loan subsidy fund for borrowers in Black and Latino neighborhoods. Advertisement A judge granted the request a day later. Ameris declined to comment. The government moved to terminate cases involving two banks in Alabama and Tennessee that had agreed to court-monitored reforms tied to allegations of discriminatory lending practices. It also moved to dismiss a case in Kinloch, Mo., against property managers accused of refusing to rent to prospective Black tenants at disproportionate rates. There are at least eight other housing and lending cases across seven states that are similarly candidates for dismissal, according to a review. While the administration blamed the Biden administration for mishandling these cases, it has also dismissed cases going back decades. It did not directly concern disparate impact, but the Justice Department in April dismissed a 1966 consent order with a Louisiana school district concerning its desegregation efforts.
